Afro-Arab (sometimes referred to as African Arab) refers to people who possess both African and/or Arabancestry. In addition, it may refer to Arabs who are not descended from recent African ancestry, but who live on the African continent.

West-Asia’s Middle east, and through recent migrations, Western Europe.

The phrase “Afro-Arab“ may also refer to African Union efforts to improve co-operation between Africa and countries of the Arab world.

The Arabs of the Middle East have very old connections to the African continent, and in addition more than half the Arab world now exists in Africa (in terms of area, and possibly population too), i.e. from

Egypt and Sudan in the east to Mauritania in the west, although much of the North African population are Berbers (a separate, native ethnic group speaking an Afro-Asiaticlanguage) or Arabized Berbers.

One of the most famous Afro Arabs of ancient times was the Pre Islamic Hero like figure Antar Ibn Shadded.

Antarah Ibn Shaddād al-‘Absī عنترة بن شداد العبسي was a pre-Islamic Arab hero and poet born (525-608) famous for both his poetry and his adventurous life. What many consider his best or chief poem is contained in the Mu’allaqat. The account of his life forms the basis of a long and extravagant romance.

Antar was in Laiwa, He was born the son of Shaddād, a well respected member of the Arabian tribe of BanuAbs, and of Zabaibah,

Ethiopian Dark Skin made it easier to classify him among the African-Asiatic slaves.

Antara claimed attention and respect for himself by his remarkable personal qualities and courage in battle, excelling as an accomplished poet and a mighty warrior. In 1898 the French painter Étienne Dinet published his translation of a 13th-century epic Arab poem Antar which brought Antar bin Shaddad to European notice.[2] It has been followed by a number of derivative works such as Diana Richmond’s Antar and Abla which furthered western exposure to the Antar bin Shaddad legends.

The Zanj Rebellions took place near the city of Basra, located in southern Iraq over a period of fifteen years (869-883 AD). They grew to involve over 500,000 slaves who were imported from across the Muslim empire and claimed over “tens of thousands of lives in lower Iraq” .

Ifriqiya was bounded on the south by the semi-arid areas and salt marshes called el-Djerid. At various times, the rulers of this area also conquered Sicily and parts of mainland Italy, and the western boundary was in continual flux but usually went as far as Bejaia.

Arabic Thought and its Place in History, De Lacy O’Leary, London: Kegan, Paul [1922], p. 227-8 says: “Gradually the Arabs spread all along North Ifriqiya*/Africa and down to the desert edge, their tribes as a rule occupying the lower ground, whilst the older population had its chief centres in the mountainous districts.

During the invasion of 45 (A.H.) the city of Kairouan (Qairouan, Qayrawan) was founded some distance south of Tunis.

The site was badly chosen, and is now marked only by ruins and a scanty village, but for some centuries it served as the capital city of Ifrikiya, which was the name given to the province lying next to Egypt, embracing the modern states of Tripoli, Tunis, and the Eastern part of Algeria up to the meridian of Bougie.”

From their base in Kairouan the Aghlabids Conquered Sicily, beginning in 827 and establishing the Emirate of Sicily, which lasted until it was displaced by the Normans, effecting lasting changes in Sicilian culture.

The Nuzi Map – made of clay may have been made 120 years before The Flood of Noah or possibly closer to Creation.

“The Nuzi Map portrays the main city within Eden/Aad as being South of the cited mid-point. That is, on the Nuzi Map the city of Aid appears to be perhaps as far south as the Dahlak Archipelago to the Northeast of Asmara, Eritrea (Ethiopia) or nearer the Sudan/Eritrean border or even further to the North perhaps nearer the Suakin Archipelago and Port Sudan. It is very probable that ruins of Eden will be found throughout this entire area.”The Nuzi map proves the existence of the 4 rivers chronicled in the “Holy Bible”.

Those 4 rivers traverse around the entire country of Ethiopia/HaBashan. Eden is located in Ethiopia.

The term for Eden was Aden/Adin/Aad – which also means:To give pleasures, has the same prime root word as Eden or Adan, to be soft pleasant or voluptuous land. Basically, this was the best place in the whole world to live flourish and be fruitful.

Egypt-Ethiopia/Kush-Nubia-Sudan was some of the places where man walked with GOD in the cool of the day ‘Where the Son of God’ met with man-kind. It would be the same place where, people would return after the Deluge – they would return to their nativity – Afrika.

NOTE: When the word Ethiopia is used it referred to ALL of AFRICA and not just the current location. Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Nubia are different words for the same people!

We now see that the Fertile Crescent was connected to the other Fertile Crescent in the Nile Valley and along the Nile River that traversed through the center of Africa and beginning in what is now call Uganda.

Where they from the same source?

Do you really believe that people never traveled UP and DOWN the Whole Nile in all the thousands of years man has lived on this Earth-planet?

And since they did, some people stayed where they traveled and mini-civilizations flourished.

The locale where the Biblical Adam and Eve, otherwise known as the

The Adamite Unit: (the Wombman and the Hue-Man) was probably born is now

Sudan/Ethiopia/Kenya at the Breast of the East African continent.

The Egyptians has identified this region as the (Mouth of the Nile) were the “Original” people resided.

The Tekeze River on the Nuzi map is not shown on many modern maps, flows into the Atbara River,which is one of the three main tributaries of the Nile River. And, it appears that the Tekeze River is the river that is clearly shown on the ancient Nuzi Map and is very close to Aad/Eden.

The TekezeRiver begins in modern Ethiopia on the Ethiopian/Eritrean border, traverses West-northwest through Ethiopia and Eritrea, and then flows into the Atbara as it enters the Sudan.

The Atbara then flows northwest through Sudan until it meets the Nile at the town of Atbarah, Sudan.

This city of Atbarah is located on the Southeast corner of the big bend of the Nile

(i.e. South of the 5th cataract or waterfall).

RememberIndigenous peoples “never” used the phrase CATARACT that was a European invention to divide the Family of Africa.

Thus, the Nuzi Map reveals that the Edenic City of Aad is in very close proximity to the Tekeze River,

Which begins due South of the Dahlak Archipelago(Ethiopia). Therefore,Eden is in Africa near the “East or Horn of Africa”.

Statelessness most commonly affects refugees although not all refugees are stateless, and not all stateless persons may be able to qualify as refugees. Refugee status entails the extra requirements that the refugee is outside their country of nationality (or country of habitual residence if stateless), and is deserving of asylum based upon a well-founded fear of persecution for categorized reasons which make him/her unwilling or unable to avail the protection of that countrySee refugee.

while the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons was adopted to cover stateless persons who are not refugees and therefore not within the scope of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Migrations forced from political instability during World War II and its immediate aftermath highlighted the international dimensions of problems presented by unprecedented volumes of displaced persons including those rendered effectively stateless.

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was done on 28 July1951. It was originally desired to cover:

“refugees and stateless persons”, however agreement was not reached with respect to the latter

The International Law Commission at its fifth session in 1953 produced both a Draft Convention on the Elimination of Future Statelessness, and a Draft Convention on the Reduction of Future Statelessness. ECOSOC approved both drafts.

The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons was done in September 1954 (The Status Convention). This completed the unfinished work of the Refugee Convention three years prior.

On 4 December 1954 the UN General Assembly by Resolution adopted both drafts as the basis of its desire for a conference of plenipotentiaries and an eventual Convention.

While as a General Assembly Declaration it is not a legally binding instrument under international law,

according to a UN press release, it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN’s member states to move in certain directions”; the UN describes it as setting “an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples that will undoubtedly be a significant tool towards eliminatinghuman rights violationsagainst the planet’s 370 million indigenous people, and assisting them in combating discrimination and marginalisation.

The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.

It also “emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations”.

It “prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples”, and it “promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development”

The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions.

Progress was slow because of certain states’ concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as

indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands.

The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council(the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, two against, 12 abstentions, and three absentees.

The Declaration was then referred to the General Assembly,

which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session.

The U.S. mission also issued a floor document, “Observations of the United States with respect to

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, setting out its objections to the Declaration. Most of these are based on the same points as the other three countries’ rejections but, in addition,

theUnited States drew attention to the Declaration’s failure to provide a clear definition of exactly whom

The West’s leading news organizations (CNN, BBC, International Herald Tribune, Reuters, Associated Press, Fox News, Yahoo!News, etc….), the recent commemoration of 50 years of Ghana’s restoration-of-independence (after the British conquest and occupation) occasioned, once again, the increasing absurdity that underscores these agencies’ understanding of the fundamentals of political geography in describing Africa.

The very ritualized invocation of the misleading, if not meaningless, epithet “sub-Sahara Africa” was the choice of each of these media outlets in its description of Ghana in their respective anniversary coverage. Indeed all of Africa, except the five predominantly Arab states of north Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt) and Sudan, which has an African majority population but an Arab minority that has wielded supreme political power since the country’s restoration-of-independence from Britain in 1956, is also frivolously labeled “sub-Sahara Africa” by these institutions in this outlandish classificatory schema.It is not obvious, on the face of it, which of the four possible meanings of the prefix, “sub”, these agencies attach to their “Sahara Africa.” Is it “under” or “part of”/”partly”? Or, presumably, “partially”/”nearly” or even the very unlikely (hopefully!) application of “in the style of, but inferior to,” especially considering that there is an Arab nationality sandwiched between Morocco and Mauritania (northwest Africa) which calls itself Saharan? The example of South Africa is apt here. Crucially, this is a reference underlined in the relevant literature of the epoch, especially those emanating from Western states, The United Nations (principally UNDP, FAO, UNCTAD, ILO), The World Bank and IMF, the so-called NGOs/”aid” groups, and some in academia, who are variously responsible for initiating and sustaining the operation of this dogma.Prior to the formal restoration of African majority government in 1994, South Africa was never designated “sub-Sahara Africa” in this portrait unlike the rest of the 13 African-led states in southern Africa. South Africa then was either termed “white South Africa” or the “South Africa sub-continent”

(as in the “India sub-continent” usage, for instance) i.e. “almost”/“partially” a continent – quite clearly a usage of “admiration” or “compliment” employed by its subscribers to essentially project and valorise the perceived geo-strategic potentials or capabilities of the erstwhile European-minority occupying regime. But soon after the triumph of the African freedom movement there, South Africa became “sub-Sahara Africa” in the quickly adjusted schema of this representation! What suddenly happened to South Africa’s “geography” to be so differently classified?! Is it African liberation/rule that renders an African state “sub-Sahara”? Does this post-1994 West-inflected South Africa-changed classification make “sub-Sahara Africa” any more intelligible?Just as in its “continent” example (above), the application of the “almost”/ “partially” or indeed “part of”/ “partly” meaning of prefix “sub-” to “Sahara Africa” focuses unambiguously on Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, each of which has 25-75% per cent of its territory (especially to the south) covered by the Sahara Desert. It also focuses on Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan, which variously have 25-75% per cent of their territories (to the north) covered by the same desert. In effect, these 10 states make up the Sahara Africa.

The five Arab North Africa states do not, correctly, describe themselves as Africans even though they unquestionably habituate

African Geography, the African continent. The West governments, press and the transnational bodies we referred to earlier

(which are predominantly led by West personnel and interests) have consistently “conceded” to this Arab insistence on racial identity. Presumably, this accounts for the West’s ludicrous non-designation of its “sub-Sahara Africa” dogma to these states as well as the Sudan, whose successive Arab-minority regimes in the past 51 years have claimed,

But incorrectly,that The Sudan “belongs” to the Arab World…

On this subject, the West does no doubt know that what it has been engaged in, all along, is blatant sophistry and not science. This, however, conveniently suits its current self-serving propaganda packaging on Africa, which we shall be elaborating on shortly.

It would appear that we still don’t seem to be any closer at establishing, conclusively, what the West media and allied institutions mean by

“sub-Sahara Africa.” Could it, perhaps, just be a benign reference to all the countries “under” the Sahara, whatever their distances from this desert, to interrogate our final, fourth probability? Presently, there are 53 sovereign states in Africa.

If the five north Africa Arab states are said to be located “above” the Sahara, then 49 are positioned “under.”

The latter would therefore include all the five countries mentioned above whose north frontiers incorporate

the southern stretches of the Desert, countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, etc., etc),

for instance, despite being 2000-2500 miles away, and even the southern African states situated 3000-3500 miles away!

In fact, all these 49 countries, except Sudan (alas, not included for the plausible reason already cited!), which is clearly “under” the Sahara and situated within the samelatitudes as Mali, Niger and Chad, are all categorized by the West as “sub-Sahara Africa.” To Replicate this obvious farce of a classification elsewhere in the world, the following random exercise is not such an indistinct scenario:

1. Australia hence becomes “sub-Great Sandy Australia” after the hot deserts that cover much of west and central Australia.

Rather than some benign construct, “sub-Sahara Africa” is, in the end, a bizarre nomenclatural code that the West employs to depict an African-led sovereign state – anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. It is of course the West’s non-inclusion of the Sudan in this grouping, despite its majority African population and geographical location, which gives the game away! More seriously to the point, though, the West uses “sub-Sahara Africa” to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geo-strategic global “irrelevance.” “Sub-Sahara Africa” is undoubtedly a Racist Geo-Political signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and hopelessness of a desert environment.

This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of “700” million Africans do not live anywhere close to the Sahara, nor are their lives so affected by the implied impact of the very loaded meaning that this dogma intends to convey. Except this increasingly pervasive use of “sub-Sahara Africa” is robustly challenged by rigorous African-centred scholarship and publicity work, the West will succeed in the coming decade to effectively substitute the name of the continent “Africa” with “sub-Sahara Africa” and the name of its peoples, “Africans,”, with “sub-Sahara Africans” or worse still “sub-Saharans” in the realm of public memory and reckoning.

It should be noted that this characterization of Africa comes in the wake of the virtual collapse of the continent’s economy in the 1980s. This was caused by the catastrophic failure of the so-called “economic structural adjustment program,” formulated by The World Bank/IMF and implemented on the ground by the infamous Afrikaan Kakistocratic regimes. The age long terms of the glaring asymmetrical Africa-West socioeconomic relations, that have always favored the West, worsened even further for Africans. Even though tagged a “developing continent,” Africa crucially became a net-exporter of capital to the West as a result, a cardinal feature of its economy since 1981. In these past 26 years, Africa has transferred the gargantuan sum of US$700 billion to the West. These exports do not include those routinely made by thieving heads of state and other state officials. The other stunning consequence of the economy’s collapse is the flight of its middle classes to the West and elsewhere. They are part of the 12 million Africans who have fled the continent in the past 20 years and who are now the principal external source of capital generation and transfer to Africa. In 2003, they dispatched the impressive sum of US$200 billion to Africa. These African émigrés also include the cream of the post-restoration of independence intelligentsia (scholars, scientists, writers, artists, journalists, doctors, nurses, other medical/health professionals, engineers, accountants, teachers, etc., etc), very talented men and women who presently enrich, quite ironically, the West’s intellectual and cultural heritage most profoundly.

It cannot be stressed too often that the extant (European-created) African states that are immanently hostile to the overriding interests of the African humanity have not ceased to be havens that continuously enrich the West most dramatically. The flip side of the coin that tells the tale of the extraordinary wealth which the West and its African regime-clients expropriate from Africa, day in, day out, is the emaciated, starving and dying child, woman and man that has been the harrowing image of the African on television screens and other publicity channels across the world. At stake, of course, is the case that the state in Africa demonstrates a glaring inability to fulfill its basic role to provide security, welfare and transformative capacities for society’s developmental needs and objectives.

It is still a conqueror’s and conquest state, precisely the way the Euro creator envisioned its ontology. It is virtually at war with its peoples, a genocide-state that has murdered 15 million in Biafra, Rwanda, Darfur and southern Sudan, the Congos and elsewhere on the continent in the past 40 years. It is the bane of African social existence. Africans now have no choice but to dismantle this state:

(“sub-Sahara,” “sub-sub-Sahara,” “proto-Sahara,” “quasi-Sahara,” “supra-Sahara,” whatever!) and create New-State/Country and/or terms that Emphatically serve their Interests and Aspirations. This is the most pressing African task of the contemporary era.